Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 66
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. MOHAN RAM & G.M. AKBAR ALI
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Versus
K. Pachiappan & Another
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(NPD)Nos.2597 & 2630 of 2011 & all connected pending MPs & MP.No.5 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on: 04-01-2012
For the Appellant:S. Arunkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 - M. Swamikannu, Advocate.
The Court confirmed the assessment of permanent disability at 80% due to the amputation of the claimant's right leg and upheld the quantum of compensation awarded.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Workmen’s Compensation Act - Schedule I - Permanent disability - Quantum of compensation - Additional evidence - Permanent disability assessed at 80% due to amputation of right leg 5 inches below the hip - Claimant entitled to compensation towards permanent disability - Tribunal's decision confirmed - Insurer's appeal dismissed - Claimant's appeal partly allowed
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a petition claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The Tribunal found the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crane driver and awarded compensation. Both the insurer and the claimant filed appeals against the quantum of compensation awarded.
Finding of the Court:
The Court confirmed the Tribunal's finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded. The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and partly allowed the claimant's appeal, awarding a total sum of Rs.20,88,000 with interest.
Issues: Dispute over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a road accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court confirmed the Tribunal's assessment of permanent disability at 80% due to the amputation of the claimant's right leg and upheld the quantum of compensation awarded. The Court also dismissed the insurer's appeal and partly allowed the claimant's appeal, awarding a total sum of Rs.20,88,000 with interest.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and partly allowed the claimant's appeal, awarding a total sum of Rs.20,88,000 with interest.
K.MOHAN RAM,J
1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 6.4.2011 made in MCOP. No.350 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fifth Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, the insurer, which is the second respondent in the claim petition, has filed CMA.No.2597 of 2011. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant has filed CMA.No.2630 of 2011.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows :
The claimant filed the aforesaid original petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.66 lakhs in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place at 14.30 hours on 24.11.2008. The case of the claimant is that when he was standing near the container lorry at the loading yard of M/s.Sanco Transport Limited, No.592, Ennore Express High Road, Ennore, Chennai-57, the Linde Fort container crane came in a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner unmindful of the person standing near the container lorry and dashed against the claimant, due to which, he had fallen down and the wheel ran over his right leg resulting in amputation of his right leg and other multiple injuries. According to the claimant, the driver of the crane is solely and directly responsible for the accident and as such, the owner of the crane and insurer are liable to pay the compensation. He was a heavy vehicle (container lorry) driver and was earning between Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/-per month. In view of the amputation of his right leg, he can no longer continue his avocation of driving and he does not know any other avocation.
3. The claim was contested by the insurer alone, as the owner of the crane remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4. The insurer, in their counter statement, inter alia contended as follows :
The age and occupation of the claimant were not admitted. The various claims made under several heads were not admitted. The place, date, time, alleged narration of the accident, nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment taken and medical expenses have been specifically denied and the claimant was put to strict proof of the same. The negligence attributed to the driver of the crane has been denied and in any case, the insurer pleaded contributory negligence. On the aforesaid pleadings, the insurer contested that it is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and four other witnesses have also been examined. ExP1 to ExP10 have been marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the insurer, one witness has been examined as RW1 and ExR1 has been marked. On a consideration of the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crane bearing Regn.No.L1-10-0820 and in view of the same, the owner of the crane as well as the insurer are liable to pay compensation.
6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of the claimant as well as the doctor -PW4 and other documentary evidence, fixed the disability at 90% and also came to the conclusion that the disability is total and permanent and applied 17 as the multiplier, as the age of the claimant was 25 on the date of accident. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-and accordingly assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs.16,32,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/-towards mental agony; another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards expectancy of life; again a sum of Rs.50,000/-for fixing the artificial limb; Rs.25,000/-towards loss of amenities in life; another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment, transport to hospital, medical expenses, etc.; and Rs.24,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the award, both the insurer as well as the
